Lagatar24 Desk
Ranchi: The Jharkhand High Court has declined to cancel the December 9, 2025 notification for land acquisition under the Godda-Pirpainti new broad-gauge railway line project, ruling that the petitioners failed to establish that objections had been duly filed before the competent authority within the 30-day window prescribed under Section 20-D of the Railways Act.
Court Rejects Plea to Alter Rail Line Alignment
The court also refused to direct any change in the alignment of the Godda-Pirpainti rail line. A division bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar dismissed the public interest litigation filed by Ashok Kumar Sah and others, who had challenged the December 9, 2025 notification, claiming that land belonging to villagers of Meharma block in Godda was being acquired for the project. The petitioners had sought consideration of villagers’ objections and requested that the proposed alignment near SRT College, Dhamri, be shifted 400 to 750 metres eastward to minimise the impact on the local population.
Court Finds No Proof Objections Were Filed with Competent Authority
The court noted that the December 9, 2025 notification had been issued under Section 20-E of the Railways Act, 1989, following an earlier notification of intent to acquire land issued under Section 20-A on August 29, 2025, and published in local newspapers. Under the law, concerned individuals were required to file written objections before the competent authority within 30 days of that publication. The bench observed that the objections placed on record by the petitioners bore no date, were addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Godda with copies marked to several officials, but carried no evidence of having been submitted to the competent authority specified in the December 9 notification. The court further noted that the petition did not clearly establish that these objections had been filed after, and in compliance with, the August 29, 2025 notification under Section 20-A. It held that a mere allegation that objections were not considered could not, by itself, serve as grounds to quash the acquisition notification.
Alignment Change Left to Railway Authorities’ Discretion
On the demand to alter the rail line’s alignment, the court observed that determining such alignment is generally a matter for technical experts, and that the scope of judicial review in such matters is extremely limited, meaning the court could not direct railway authorities to change it. However, the bench clarified that dismissal of the petition did not prevent railway authorities from considering the villagers’ request for a change in alignment on their own, and that they remained free to examine it if found practical and reasonable — while making clear that the court itself had issued no such direction to the railways.
